DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150-word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “inserting the plate into the plurality of coils after the plurality of coils are constrained in a circular configuration.” It is unclear how the plate would be inserted after the coils are constrained in a circular configuration as the plate appears to be in a single-piece configuration. Furthermore, as required by claim 18, the wire is configured to form a plurality of coils around the inner diameter and the outer diameter of the plate, so it is unclear how the plurality of coils would be formed without the presence of the plate. As the language of the claim and the description in the instant specification are not consistent with one another, the Examiner was unable to examine the claim at this time. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.06 (II).
Claim 22 recites the limitation “inserting the plate into the plurality of coils before the plurality of coils are constrained in a circular configuration.” It is unclear how the plate would be inserted into the plurality of coils as the plate appears to be in a single-piece configuration. As required by claim 18, the wire is configured to form a plurality of coils around the inner diameter and the outer diameter of the plate, so it is unclear how the plurality of coils would be formed without the presence of the plate. As the language of the claim and the description in the instant specification are not consistent with one another, the Examiner was unable to examine the claim at this time. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.06 (II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 , 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB Patent No. 1500437 A to Eichenauer et al. (hereinafter referred to as Eichenauer), as evidenced by Urone, P. P. “Heat and Heat Transfer Methods” in: Ntam, M. Tuskegee University Algebra Based Physics I(2020, August 23). Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://phys.libretexts.org/@go/page/26543> Chapter 8 (hereinafter referred to as Urone).
Regarding claim 1, Eichenauer teaches a heater assembly (Pg. 1, line 11 “The invention relates to electrical heaters”), comprising: a plate (Fig. 2, insulating plate 10) having an inner diameter, an outer diameter, a planar surface, and a curved surface (see annotated figures below);
PNG
media_image1.png
508
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
509
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a wire configured to form a plurality of coils around the inner diameter and outer diameter of the plate (Fig. 2, heating wire 13), wherein each of the plurality of coils is configured to intersect the inner diameter of the plate and the outer diameter of the plate (Fig. 2, individual turns 14 intersect both inner and outer diameter of plate). Eichenauer does not explicitly teach wherein a radial width is defined by half of the difference between the outer diameter of the plate and the inner diameter of the plate, the radial width greater than a thickness of the plate.
However, Eichenauer does teach that the plate is designed as a support element to prevent the heating wire from sagging (Pg. 1, lines 40-53 “Because these turns of wire expand upon heating they tend to be subject to sagging. In order to prevent any contact between the individual turns of wire these must be supported at frequent intervals within the annular duct. The support may be effected, for example, by the introduction of ceramic plates”). As evidenced by Urone, Fourier’s Law (Q/t = (kA(T2-T1))/d ; wherein Q/t is rate of heat transfer, A is contact area, k is thermal conductivity, and T2-T1 is the difference in temperature between the two materials) shows that the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the contact area (Pg. 24, equation 8.6.1). That is to say, the greater the contact area between the two objects, the higher the rate of heat transfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order to maintain the heating efficiency of the heater assembly as taught by Eichenauer one would want to minimize the contact area between the heating wire and the plate to prevent excessive heat transfer between the two materials. Designing the heater assembly to have a radial width that is greater than a thickness of the plate would have been obvious through routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not teach a second plate having an inner diameter, an outer diameter, a planar surface, and a curved surface, wherein the wire is configured to form a second plurality of coils around the second plate, and wherein each of the second plurality of c oils has a diameter greater than half of a difference between the outer diameter of the second plate and the inner diameter of the second plate. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not disclose the exact dimensions of the heater assembly and does therefore not explicitly teach wherein the difference between the outer diameter of the plate and the inner diameter of the plate is greater than 10 mm. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not disclose the exact dimensions of the heater assembly and does therefore not explicitly teach wherein the outer diameter of the plate is in a range of 140 mm to 175 mm. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not disclose the exact dimensions of the heater assembly and does therefore not explicitly teach wherein the inner diameter of the plate is in a range of 125 mm to 160 mm. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plate comprises a planar ring (Fig. 2, annular insulating plate 10).
Regarding claim 7, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plate comprises mica (Pg. 2, lines 98-99 “It consists of a thin annular insulating plate 10, for example of mica”).
Regarding claim 8, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plate comprises a plurality of notches disposed on an outer portion of the plate (Fig. 2, notches 15).
Regarding claim 9, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not disclose wherein the plate is configured to melt at a temperature of greater than 1000⁰C. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the insulating plate that is compatible with the operating temperature at which the heater assembly is to be run. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eichenauer does not teach wherein the plate comprises a split. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater assembly as taught by Eichenauer to incorporate a slit in the insulating plate to allow for easier assembly and maintenance without having to uncoil the heating wire entirely. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 11, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Eixhenauer does not teach wherein the plate comprises a first c-shaped plate, the heater assembly further comprising a second c-shaped plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater assembly as taught by Eichenauer to incorporate a two-piece configuration within the insulating plate to allow for easier assembly and maintenance. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 12, Eichenauer teaches the heater assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plate comprises an appendage configured to support a portion of the wire, the portion of the wire configured to extend from the plurality of coils (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
514
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Eichenauer teaches a method, comprising: providing a plate (Fig. 2, insulating plate 10) having an inner diameter, an outer diameter, a planar surface, and a curved surface (see annotated figures below);
PNG
media_image4.png
613
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
704
617
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and providing a wire configured to form a plurality of coils around the inner diameter and outer diameter of the plate (Fig. 2, heating wire 13), wherein each of the plurality of coils has a diameter greater than half of a difference between the outer diameter of the plate and the inner diameter of the plate (Fig. 2, heating wire 13 coils completely around insulating plate 10 and the diameter of the coils would therefore be greater than half of a difference between the outer and inner diameters of the plates), wherein each of the plurality of coils is configured to intersect the inner diameter of the plate and the outer diameter of the plate (Fig. 2, individual turns 14 intersect both inner and outer diameter of plate). Eichenauer does not explicitly teach wherein a radial width is defined by half of the difference between the outer diameter of the plate and the inner diameter of the plate, the radial width greater than a thickness of the plate.
However, Eichenauer does teach that the plate is designed as a support element to prevent the heating wire from sagging (Pg. 1, lines 40-53 “Because these turns of wire expand upon heating they tend to be subject to sagging. In order to prevent any contact between the individual turns of wire these must be supported at frequent intervals within the annular duct. The support may be effected, for example, by the introduction of ceramic plates”). As evidenced by Urone, Fourier’s Law (Q/t = (kA(T2-T1))/d ; wherein Q/t is rate of heat transfer, A is contact area, k is thermal conductivity, and T2-T1 is the difference in temperature between the two materials) shows that the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the contact area. That is to say, the greater the contact area between the two objects, the higher the rate of heat transfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order to maintain the heating efficiency of the heater assembly as taught by Eichenauer one would want to minimize the contact area between the heating wire and the plate to prevent excessive heat transfer between the two materials. Designing the heater assembly to have a radial width that is greater than a thickness of the plate would have been obvious through routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 19, Eichenauer teaches the method as applied to claim 18 above, further comprising: preventing the plurality of coils from moving more than threshold distance (Fig. 2, notches 15 would prevent the coils from moving closer or further away from one another).
Regarding claim 21, Eichenauer teaches the method as applied to claim 21 above. Eichenauer does not teach wherein the plate comprises a split. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater assembly as taught by Eichenauer to incorporate a slit in the insulating plate to allow for easier assembly and maintenance without having to uncoil the heating wire entirely. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). With such a modification, bending the plate of Eichenauer at the split in order to insert the plate into the plurality of coils would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a step in the assembly of the heater.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights